↓ Skip to main content

Examining influential factors in providers’ chronic pain treatment decisions: a comparison of physicians and medical students

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Examining influential factors in providers’ chronic pain treatment decisions: a comparison of physicians and medical students
Published in
BMC Medical Education, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0441-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole A. Hollingshead, Samantha Meints, Stephanie K. Middleton, Charnelle A. Free, Adam T. Hirsh

Abstract

Chronic pain treatment guidelines are unclear and conflicting, which contributes to inconsistent pain care. In order to improve pain care, it is important to understand the various factors that providers rely on to make treatment decisions. The purpose of this study was to examine factors that reportedly influence providers' chronic pain treatment decisions. A secondary aim was to examine differences across participant training level. Eighty-five participants (35 medical students, 50 physicians) made treatment decisions for 16 computer-simulated patients with chronic pain. Participants then selected from provided lists the information they used and the information they would have used (had it been available) to make their chronic pain treatment decisions for the patient vignettes. Frequency analyses indicated that most participants reported using patients' pain histories (97.6 %) and pain description (95.3 %) when making treatment decisions, and they would have used information about patients' previous treatments (97.6 %) and average and current pain ratings (96.5 %) had this information been available. Compared to physicians, medical students endorsed more frequently that they would have used patients' employment and/or disability status (p < 0.05). A greater proportion of medical students wanted information on patients' use of illicit drugs and alcohol to make treatment decisions; while a greater proportion of physicians reported using personal experience to inform their decisions. This study found providers use patients' information and their own experiences and intuition to make chronic pain treatment decisions. Also, participants of different training levels report using different patient and personal factors to guide their treatment decisions. These results highlight the complexity of chronic pain care and suggest a need for more chronic pain education aimed at medical students and practicing providers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 26%
Student > Master 5 26%
Other 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 21%
Psychology 4 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 16%
Sports and Recreations 2 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 2 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2016.
All research outputs
#9,570,000
of 17,358,590 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,234
of 2,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,171
of 290,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#107
of 191 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,358,590 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,437 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 290,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 191 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.